Preview:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA


September 2007 Term _____________ No. 33324 _____________ STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, Plaintiff Below, Appellee, v. JONATHON FREEMONT RAY, Defendant Below, Appellant

FILED November 8, 2007
released at 3:00 p.m.
RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

_________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Circuit Court of Preston County
Honorable Lawrance S. Miller Jr., Judge
No. 04-F-40 and No. 04-F-71
AFFIRMED _________________________________________________________ Submitted: October 23, 2007 Filed: November 8, 2007

J.L. Hickok Appellate Advocacy Division Public Defender Services Charleston, West Virginia Attorney for the Appellant

Darrell V. McGraw, Jr. Attorney General William R. Valentino Assistant Attorney General Charleston, West Virginia Attorneys for the Appellee

JUSTICE BENJAMIN delivered the Opinion of the Court. JUSTICES STARCHER and ALBRIGHT concur and reserve the right to file concurring opinions.

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. "Where the issue on appeal is clearly a question of law or involving an

interpretation of a statute, we apply a de novo standard of review." Syllabus Point 1, Chrystal R.M. v. Charlie A.L., 194 W. Va. 138, 459 S.E.2d 415 (1995).

2.

"[A] double jeopardy claim . . . [is] reviewed de novo." Syllabus Point

1, in part, State v. Sears, 196 W. Va. 71, 468 S.E.2d 324 (1996).

3.

"Where the language of a statute is clear and without ambiguity the

plain meaning is to be accepted without resorting to the rules of interpretation." Syllabus Point 2, State v. Elder, 152 W. Va. 571, 165 S.E.2d 108 (1968).

4.

"If the language of an enactment is clear and within the constitutional

authority of the lawmaking body which passed it, courts must read the relevant law according to its unvarnished meaning, without any judicial embroidery." Syllabus Point 3, in part, West Virginia Health Care Cost Review Auth. v. Boone Memorial Hosp., 196 W. Va. 326, 472 S.E.2d 411 (1996).

5.

"A statutory provision which is clear and unambiguous and plainly

expresses the legislative intent will not be interpreted by the courts but will be given full force and effect." Syllabus Point 1, Sowa v. Huffman, 191 W. Va. 105, 443 S.E.2d 262 i

(1994).


6.

"A criminal statute must be set out with sufficient definiteness to give

a person of ordinary intelligence adequate standards for adjudication. Syllabus Point 1, State v. Flinn, 158 W. Va. 111, 208 S.E.2d 538 (1974).

7.

Under West Virginia Code

Download 33324.pdf

West Virginia Law